What is Pro???

[cichlid]

I've been itching to upgrade from my Nikon D40 to either the D7000 or D300s. Though, the more I read comparing the two cameras the more undecided I am on which one to get.

What confuses me the most is that Nikon lists both model under the label of Advance DSLR, though, review say that the D7000 is "less Pro" than the D300s. So far I still don't understand what is making the D300s a "better" camera than the D7000? Especially when a lot of the feature on the D7000 are superior to that on the D300s.

Thank you in advance for your insights,

Erik

[Shadowman]

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_INC/IMG/A...LR_Compare.pdf

Sometimes it hard to distinguish between entry level and prosumer models. It would be great if the camera manufacturers would put comparative photos taken with each model using the same settings.

[Steaphany]

It would be great if the camera manufacturers would put comparative photos taken with each model using the same settings.

The problem I see with this is, whether on a printed brochure or hosted on a web site, the image would have some level of being cooked, post processed, potentially resolution scaled, dynamic range mapped into the presentation medium. In other words, unless they provide the RAW format files downloaded directly from the camera, there is too much extra involved in bringing an image to presentation form that the camera becomes a small contributor. Then, what do you end up comparing ? Don't forget, you'd need the same lens too.

Just remember, no matter what camera you finally choose to buy, it will have failings and head aches that you'll have to surmount. So, select based on the functionality and capabilities that you know you need.
- - -
As far as Professional, Prosumer, or Consumer/Mass Market equipment goes, who is making the claim ?

A manufacturer can say what ever they want about their "top of the line" equipment being utilized by professional career photographers, but what cameras do actual professional career photographers use ?

For example, the National Geographic book "The Ultimate Field Guide to Photography" Chapter 4 "A Camera Phone Travelogue" by Robert Clark, wow a for real pro photographer, used a Sony Ericsson S710A cell phone's 1.5 MP camera !!!

Does this mean a cell phone camera is Pro grade or that here is an example of a photographer challenging himself with an obviously limited camera ?

It all comes down to successful photography is choosing a technology that provides what you need and transcending the headaches bundled with it.

[Shadowman]

The problem I see with this is, whether on a printed brochure or hosted on a web site, the image would have some level of being cooked, post processed, potentially resolution scaled, dynamic range mapped into the presentation medium. In other words, unless they provide the RAW format files downloaded directly from the camera, there is too much extra involved in bringing an image to presentation form that the camera becomes a small contributor. Then, what do you end up comparing ? Don't forget, you'd need the same lens too.

Just remember, no matter what camera you finally choose to buy, it will have failings and head aches that you'll have to surmount. So, select based on the functionality and capabilities that you know you need.
- - -
As far as Professional, Prosumer, or Consumer/Mass Market equipment goes, who is making the claim ?

A manufacturer can say what ever they want about their "top of the line" equipment being utilized by professional career photographers, but what cameras do actual professional career photographers use ?

For example, the National Geographic book "The Ultimate Field Guide to Photography" Chapter 4 "A Camera Phone Travelogue" by Robert Clark, wow a for real pro photographer, used a Sony Ericsson S710A cell phone's 1.5 MP camera !!!

Does this mean a cell phone camera is Pro grade or that here is an example of a photographer challenging himself with an obviously limited camera ?

It all comes down to successful photography is choosing a technology that provides what you need and transcending the headaches bundled with it.

The post processing wouldn't be so bad unless it was done to one photo and not the other. We can assume that all things being equal (same lens, same settings) whatever issues that needed to be corrected with post processing would occur with both cameras. The only difference I saw in the two models Erik listed was ISO ranges. So unless one was shot with a simulated ISO 100 then all systems should be equal.

[Donald]

What confuses me the most is that Nikon lists both model under the label of Advance DSLR, though, review say that the D7000 is "less Pro" than the D300s. So far I still don't understand what is making the D300s a "better" camera than the D7000? Especially when a lot of the feature on the D7000 are superior to that on the D300s.

Thought some more of the Nikon users might have come in here to help Erik out with suggestions/ideas.

[JonathanC]

Try this:-
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm#compared
Ken Rockwell's take on it. He suggests that the D300s is upstaged by the newer D7000 but that they have stocks of D300s that they want to move.

[Shadowman]

I think this calls for a comparative/meet up/shoot off of both cameras. So if anyone has both models (D300s/D7000) and are willing to meet on level playing fields, put these cameras to the test, share with us the results and put this matter to rest. Any challengers, I would but I don't own either models.

[Clactonian]

OK Donald, I'll chip in as a Nikon user.
I think the first thing you need to do Erik is ignore the marketing hype that accompanies all camera launches and the 'tags' that manufacturers attach to the product. Look carefully at the specifications of each camera you have in mind within your budget. This should include size, weight, choice of compatible lenses, longevity, etc.
Tabulate them side by side and then tick those features which are really important to you, maybe even grading them from essential to non-essential. Be very firm or positive about this because its easy to get carried away. .
This way you will at least see which of those cameras in the frame best covers your requirements, and those features you might be paying for but will never use.
Yes, take into account that the 7000 is the latest technology and that the 300s will be replaced in the not too distant future, but if the latter still ticks more of your boxes then it could still be the best buy.
Above all do not make a decision until you have handled both cameras at a dealers and preferably take some shots with both. Advances in technology are such that there really aren't any bad cameras on the market. Handling and ease of handling are essential provided the camera meets your other requirements.

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Erik,

I am a Nikon user who upgraded from a D70s to a D300s. I use all my camera with one dial ( in aperure priority) and two button (ISO and EV Overrride). The only reason I updated is a publisher who does my calendar wanted larger files (the D70s was 6 mp while the D300s is 13 mp).

I find the D300s suits my shooting and purpose but do I really notice much diffrence between it and the D70 - NO.

So think more about the right palce/right time, understanding light and composition and find a camera that you can work intuitively so you can concentrate on these more important issues. Just my opinion.

[rob marshall]

Why is the word 'pro' so positive? There was a time (Victorian) when the word 'amateur' was a good thing. There were many amateur biologists, geologists, naturalists, photographers, botanists etc. No-one laughed at them, or derided them. In fact it was often quite the opposite as it was often seen as unseemly to sully oneself by doing something for money, or 'trade'. The only people who could afford to be serious amateurs were the more wealthy in society, as they had more time and other resources to follow their interest. And quite often they made a valuable contribution to their field.

I'd suggest that the word 'pro' has been hijacked by ad men in recent years because it appeals to the baser reactions of the bedints in society who think that if they are making money then they are 'professional' - and even worse they think that all amateurs are worthless. How did we get to that position?

[eribeiro]

Why is the word 'pro' so positive? There was a time (Victorian) when the word 'amateur' was a good thing. There were many amateur biologists, geologists, naturalists, photographers, botanists etc. No-one laughed at them, or derided them. In fact it was often quite the opposite as it was often seen as unseemly to sully oneself by doing something for money, or 'trade'. The only people who icould afford to be serious amateurs were the more wealthy in society, as they had more time and other resources to follow their interest. And quite often they made a valuable contribution to their field.

I'd suggest that the word 'pro' has been hijacked by ad men in recent years because it appeals to the baser reactions of the bedints in society who think that if they are making money then they are 'professional' - and even worse they think that all amateurs are worthless. How did we get to that position?

Great Post. For those who enjoy history/language: amateur in latin means "one who loves". Any equipment focused in servicing one who loves photography seems to me a better equipment than another focused in allowing a "pro" to make a living. Of course lhe loving pro is the one who writes history. But he/she is a lover before being a pro.
Should not care a rodent's for the makers tags.
All the best.
Eduardo

[cichlid]

I knew I was not going to regret joining CiC.
Thank you everyone for your thoughts on the matter.
The question of "pro" and amateur was well appreciated. If I am honest with myself and all of you, I am somewhat caught up in the commercialism. Do I even need such a "high-end" camera to begin with. It is not like my D40 is not suiting my needs.

In the end, I will keep a promise to myself and my wife, that I will complete my photography course first. At which point I expect to be in a better position to decide if I need a new camera now or not.

Erik

[eribeiro]

I knew I was not going to regret joining CiC.
Thank you everyone for your thoughts on the matter.
The question of "pro" and amateur was well appreciated. If I am honest with myself and all of you, I am somewhat caught up in the commercialism. Do I even need such a "high-end" camera to begin with. It is not like my D40 is not suiting my needs.

In the end, I will keep a promise to myself and my wife, that I will complete my photography course first. At which point I expect to be in a better position to decide if I need a new camera now or not.

Erik

Way to go Erik. And if I learned something here at CIC, is that we should focus our savings in lenses more than cameras.
Salut

[benm]

The D300S has a slightly better AF system but the D7000 has better low-light capability. That's based on what I read. I have a D300S and I can tell you that it is weather sealed to some extent as I accidently dunked mine in a stream. No harm done. You should know that the D300S has no scene modes and no green Auto button if that is important to you. They both have dual card slots, though for the D300S you need both SD and CF; for the D7000 you only need SDs. Just about everything else that's different (magnesium frame, blah, blah, blah) is marketing. Put your money into lenses if you have to make a choice - that will make a much bigger difference.